Ron; sorry it took so long to get back to you.My apologies for my jumbled attempt to answer your earlier thoughtful post. (I had less than 4hrs.sleep from answering your previous post the night before and was at work trying to multi-task at the same time. (Lesson to myself: "Not a good idea". lol) After resting and going back over this material again and referencing the Jungian Lexicon I gathered a few quotes that Joseph Campbell has mentioned in the past concerning his work as one of the world's foremost "Mythologists". And here is what I am respectfully offering to consider as you pursue your new quest.
(Taken from the "Exploring Your Personal Mythology" forum heading):
( Taken from Michael Toms recordings of interviews and the book: " An Open Life ". ):
" You know for some people " Jungian " is a nasty word. and it has been flung at me by certain reviewers as though to say, " Don't bother with Joe Campbell; he is a Jungian. " I'm not a Jungian! As far as interpreting myths, Jung gives me the best clues I've got. But I'm much more interested in diffusion and relationships historically than Jung was, so that the Jungians think of me as a kind of questionable person. I don't use those formula words very often in my interpretation of myths, but Jung gives me the background from which to let the myth talk to me.
If I do have a guru of that sort, it would be Zimmer - the one who really gave me the courage to interpret the myths out of what I knew of their common symbols. There's always a risk there, but it's the risk of your own personal adventure instead of just gluing yourself to what someone else has found. "
(Taken from the Joseph Campbell favorites thread):
Joseph Campbell believed that "within the field of a secular society, which is a sort of neutral frame that allows individuals to develop their own lives, so long as they don't annoy their neighbors too much, each of us has an individual myth that's driving us, which we may or may not know." (From: Pathways to Bliss).
"A mythological order is a system of images that gives consciousness a sense of meaning in existence, which, my dear friend, has no meaning––it simply is. But the mind goes asking for meanings; it can't play unless it knows (or makes up) the rules.
"Mythologies present games to play: how to make believe you're doing thus and so. Ultimately, through the game, you experience that positive thing which is the experience of being-in-being, of living meaningfully. That's the first function of a mythology, to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence."
Joseph Campbell, Pathways to Bliss, p. 6
From your last post referring to what I'm understanding as your new mythological direction concerning among other areas of address; "An Eastern Approach to Consciousness":
So then, what are we really questing for? And here is the answer: It is the fullfillment of what is potential in ourselves, our true selves. It is not an ego trip. You are not your ego. You experience your ego. You are not your thoughts. You experience your thoughts. You are not your feelings. You experience your feelings. And you are not your body. You behold your body. This recognition awakens a heritage within us that exists before all these mythologies, religions and belief systems came into being and into our traditions. It's an awakening of our own pre-ego, pre-Hindu, pre-Jewish, pre-Buddhist, pre-Muslim, pre-Christian hearts.
The Eastern Way: Oriental Mythology (Joseph Campbell Audio Collection I.3.1)
Thank you for the kind comments. I guess what I am trying to do is to expand the work of Jung and Campbell beyond the realm of psychology.
(I realize we have previously covered the "Transcendent Function" in the "Jung in the Weeds" thread but for those reading this who are unfamiliar with this term here is the definition from the Lexicon. I will add this as a separate sidebar since it has already been addressed. ):
I see Jung and Campbell's work as a springboard to the new, much needed mythology, and I find that exciting. I guess the problem is that I'm not very interested in psychology.
I also understand his definition of the transcendent function, which is the thesis, antithesis, synthesis paradigm. Conflict leads to synthesis. I just wish he hadn't used the word transcendent. It seems to me he meant it in terms of transcending conflict, which is not the same as transcending materialism.
Transcendent function. A psychic function that arises from the tension between consciousness and the unconscious and supports their union. (See also opposites and tertium non datur.)
When there is full parity of the opposites, attested by the ego's absolute participation in both, this necessarily leads to a suspension of the will, for the will can no longer operate when every motive has an equally strong countermotive. Since life cannot tolerate a standstill, a damming up of vital energy results, and this would lead to an insupportable condition did not the tension of opposites produce a new, uniting function that transcends them. This function arises quite naturally from the regression of libido caused by the blockage.[Ibid., par. 824.]
The tendencies of the conscious and the unconscious are the two factors that together make up the transcendent function. It is called "transcendent" because it makes the transition from one attitude to another organically possible.[The Transcendent Function," CW 8, par. 145.]
In a conflict situation, or a state of depression for which there is no apparent reason, the development of the transcendent function depends on becoming aware of unconscious material. This is most readily available in dreams, but because they are so difficult to understand Jung considered the method of active imagination-giving "form" to dreams, fantasies, etc.--to be more useful.
Once the unconscious content has been given form and the meaning of the formulation is understood, the question arises as to how the ego will relate to this position, and how the ego and the unconscious are to come to terms. This is the second and more important stage of the procedure, the bringing together of opposites for the production of a third: the transcendent function. At this stage it is no longer the unconscious that takes the lead, but the ego.[Ibid., par. 181.]
This process requires an ego that can maintain its standpoint in face of the counterposition of the unconscious. Both are of equal value. The confrontation between the two generates a tension charged with energy and creates a living, third essence.
From the activity of the unconscious there now emerges a new content, constellated by thesis and antithesis in equal measure and standing in a compensatory relation to both. It thus forms the middle ground on which the opposites can be united. If, for instance, we conceive the opposition to be sensuality versus spirituality, then the mediatory content born out of the unconscious provides a welcome means of expression for the spiritual thesis, because of its rich spiritual associations, and also for the sensual antithesis, because of its sensuous imagery. The ego, however, torn between thesis and antithesis, finds in the middle ground its own counterpart, its sole and unique means of expression, and it eagerly seizes on this in order to be delivered from its division.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 825.]
The transcendent function is essentially an aspect of the self-regulation of the psyche. It typically manifests symbolically and is experienced as a new attitude toward oneself and life.
If the mediatory product remains intact, it forms the raw material for a process not of dissolution but of construction, in which thesis and antithesis both play their part. In this way it becomes a new content that governs the whole attitude, putting an end to the division and forcing the energy of the opposites into a common channel. The standstill is overcome and life can flow on with renewed power towards new goals.[Ibid., par. 827.]
Okay so up to this point I think we have pretty well established at least part of the direction you are trying to go with this; (that is as I'm understanding it so far). However; that said I think you are going to run into a problem that is going to be very difficult to separate
with not including this dimension of the psychological interplay between the different Jungian components: (that means "all" of them); not just one or two; (and yes; concerning consciousness). We realize that in the West the mindset is oriented from a more "Dualistic" point-of-view which is not the same as Eastern. And also I believe you are approaching your perspective from a more Eastern viewpoint concerning "Consciousness". But even though we may differ on this IMHO this was what Joseph Campbell was trying to address that by definition because of the very nature of what this aspect of consciousness and the mind are represented and interpreted by; whether by way of ancient eastern or more modern western; the mental mechanics of perception and the mind are similarly constructed "psychologically speaking"; and proceed towards a common ground of purpose.
Furthermore the context of this dynamic interplay between each and every one of them matters a great deal. For instance understanding what the definition of The Self is and the relationship of The Self to the Ego; The Ego to The Shadow and also the Anima/Animus; what the definition of Archetype is in relation to an Archetypal Image; the difference between the Personal and Objective Psyche; the four classifications of the states of the unconscious and conscious including the "Collective Unconscious"; as well as the role that "Emotion" plays as conduit within this context. (That's just to name "some" of these aspects; there are of course others as well). And the role that Individuation plays as the natural propensity of the Psyche that seeks it's expression from within the deepest part of itself in it's journey of self-regulation towards healing and wholeness. (Interpretation mine.)
The Self, the Ego, the Persona, the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, Complexes, Dreams, the Archetype and Archetypal Image, the Personal and Objective Psyche; the 4 states of the Conscious and Unconscious; as well as the various Mental Conditions that are also arranged within this specific ordered context and operate within a very precise inter-related field of Psychological address.
It is my understanding that Joseph emphasizes them from the "mythological" perspective; and he offers them as a springboard to "connect-the-dots" between the various cultural interpretive points-of-view; western/eastern; spiritual/religious; as well as medical/scientific - or secular; etc. Something to also keep in mind I might suggest is what he states about the fast changing global societal landscape he mentions concerning the formation of any new mythology to come. That being that the older cultural orders have disintegrated and no longer serve the functions or purpose for which they were originally intended; or in other words it is the "individual interpretation" drawn from many sources that forms the basis of this new template to come. Like the archetypal symbol of the "MonoMyth" or "Hero's Journey"; we are to seek the Call of the Adventure to become the "Hero's of our own lives. (Perhaps like the one you are now engaged with; no?) And as an example like the ancient symbol of the "Gryphon" which is an assemblage of various parts Joseph once used; to slay one's own psychological "Dragons". But in the end it is my understanding here that his emphasis is on finding one's own "Personal Myth" through the Fire, Alchemy, or "Dark Forrest" of one's own personal experience as this new template by drawing from "all" of these other forms from the past.
So in trying to add some additional clarity; (yes, I read through your posts); and except for the psychological aspect it doesn't seem to me like we are really in disagreement here. We can certainly agree to disagree if you feel otherwise; but overall I think your initial approach seems like a very creative one. But unless there is something I'm not seeing or interpreting correctly concerning these Jungian ideas within this paradigm; it is my understanding what Joseph's message here is saying regarding an "Eastern verses Western" synthesis is: ("combined with; not separate from").